The Maelstrom of Violence

[pbrower2a]

The inheritance would have been enough for me to get some 'experiential' therapy -- getting away from the scene with some out-of-region travel. Dating, something that I could never do while in a custodial mode, would have been a good thing to do. But it is pointless except if one has money to spend.

Economics to the extent of class identity overpowers almost everything else (except perhaps the injunctions against outright crime) in America. Our economic order is no longer competitive capitalist; all that matters anymore is that the Right People get what they want and that all others comply with the whims of economic sadists who rule us. To be sure, those economic sadists will allow people to keep the pretenses to middle-class ways of life to the extent that such serves the elites (as in getting people into and keeping them in debt so that they will do as they are told just to avoid going destitute).

Spending the rest of my life in a dreary hick town and being confined to an apartment except when doing mindless work as a convenience-store cashier is a living nightmare. All that would keep me from committing suicide is fear of Hell. Someone else might as well have that horrid job as I. No, that is not Donald Trump's fault; he is only a symptom of economic elites devoid of any moral compass but insatiable appetites for personal indulgence. I am tempted to say to members of such an elite that I find culpable:

"I hate your world and I hate the life that you demand that I endure. For me a sudden fatal coronary would be a blessing. You make me regret that I did not take up chain smoking and that I ever counted calories. You are no better than the robber who kills a victim; like such a robber you do not care about anyone but yourself, your immediate family members, and your cronies. I do not need to use any four-letter words; you have provided more than enough vulgar profanity through your actions.

There might be some schmuck who considers you a great benefactor. Maybe your world is tolerable for people like them. It is not for me".

[pbrower2a]

More on this theme:




It is possible to look at this chart and see at the low end (10th percentile) what the intellectual qualifications are. A not-so-brilliant physician might be consigned to specialties that might not be so intellectually demanding. Getting into the medical profession is obviously difficult, requiring much intellectual proficiency before getting into med school. The second-most demanding looks like "legal professions".  I can imagine the low end being involved in such activities as collecting a debt through the use of a threat with a legal firm. Better this than the dead fish delivered to the doorstep of someone who gambled on credit and lost. College professors? The 10th percentile is around 95%. This may suggest the pedantic professor at a liberal arts school who knows one book and teaches it in a Great Books tradition. As such schools disappear, that sort of professor is clearly dying out or being consigned to a high school, where he needs more flexibility (10th percentile at an IQ of 91).

Hard work and dedicated specialization may put one in a surprisingly-strong field.  Could it be that smart but lazy, troubled, or indecisive people can end up as janitors or truck drivers?

But if one is smart, has a good work ethic, has access to credit and the willingness to use it, then the sky might be the limit. I would guess that although a job description can describe a paper-pushing clerk well, it poorly describes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Albert Einstein. Those two were basically what they did, and they got to choose what they did. For this one can look at the 90th percentile. Yes, there might be a janitor with an IQ of 130, but I doubt that such a janitor would be happy with such a job. 90% of all janitors have an IQ under 111...

I look at the 90th percentile for physicians, attorneys, college professors, and natural scientists/musicians, and I see an IQ of 132. It is easy to assume that someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Noam Chomsky loves what he does. It is safe to assume that the 91st through 99th percentiles of intelligence encompass people like this. There just aren't that many people with IQs over 130 that people so smart can be 10% of any profession.

So let's look at the 90th percentiles for people in some other categories:

electrical engineers 128
material and design engineers 128
finance/insurance/real estate occupations 128
computer occupations 128
social scientists 126
administrative occupations 126
high-school teachers 125
creative occupations 125
service managers 125
social workers and clergy 124

These fields offer much to those who do them. Even if the pay isn't so great for high-school teachers, social workers and clergy, and lots of artists and writers are 'starving', the work offers potentially far more satisfaction than 'it pays the bills'.

Now let's look at the other end for the 90th percentile.

metalworking craftsmen 107 (the lowest level of IQ at the 90th percentile)
"operatives, other" (whatever that means) 109
truck drivers 109
freight and material handlers 109
janitors and sextons 111
carpenters 111
construction craftsmen other than carpenters 111
plumbers 112
assemblers 113

It is clear that one does most of these jobs solely for the money. It's hard to imagine any intellectual satisfaction from doing them.  Maybe there are virtues in having low expectations in life. Plumbers are skilled workers, but their work is unpleasant and often dangerous. Metalworking craftsmen? That includes foundry work. It might be more skilled and demanding than "janitors and sextons", but if you have ever worked in a foundry you have experienced a world that fits some images of hell. Maybe no brimstone, but certainly much fire.

It is obviously difficult to keep working for long in an occupation for which one lacks the intellectual standards. But working at an occupation far below one's talent? That is one possible component of alienation.

[Eric the Green]

(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-28-2017, 08:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are dealing in stereotypes instead of reality. I know at least one welfare recipient (teenager who bore a couple cute cash cows). If welfare recipients are more expensive than they used to be, then so is about everything not in the cost-cutting curve of high-tech objects.  I have not sought out poor people, but I have seen them. Most of the poverty that I have seen recently is temporary bad luck or being 'working poor' -- doing real work but getting a travesty of a paycheck. 

I have never gone through a hippie phase. My casual clothing has been typical for a golf course. I was a virgin well into my twenties. I am ferociously anti-drug, as you can see from my posts when the topic comes up. But that is fairly typical of people with Asperger's. I can be the most judgmental a$$hole that you have ever met. But what excuse does anyone have for being an alcoholic or an addict?

Many of the working-class kids did not like me because I seemed like the "Little Professor" who paid attention to school books instead of cars. When I was in high school in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1972 to 1974 I got along badly with the white low-achievers, but got along very well with Asian-Americans and people that I mistook for German-Americans because of their surnames (get it?). Surprising for someone who thought that he would come off as a hayseed?

Although white working-class people voted heavily for Trump, the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Twin Cities area , who are much more politically astute than under-educated white people, still vote heavily Democratic .

I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

[pbrower2a]

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

In fact, welfare recipients have every incentive to take low-paying jobs as retail cashiers and fast-food workers.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

I vote against the welfare system/state and those who represent it. Just so we understand one another, if I were a welfare recipient, I wouldn't to give up my free healthcare, free dental and eye coverage, free housing or housing subsidies, free energy or subsidized energy/utilities, free daycare or subsidized daycare, free furnaces and water heaters, fee higher education or subsidized higher education, ect. because that would be down right stupid of me. Hmm, none of them are small ticket item based of my knowledge of all the costs associated with them. See, I don't think blues are that stupid. As far as the welfare recipients, I have to many relationships with to many of them for me to believe what you other blues always say that I believe is true. As I said, I don't do stereotypes. You're right, I am entitled to receive my social security and medicare. How many years of receiving freebies or substantially reduced costs before they are viewed by welfare recipients as entitlements? You're the resident expert on welfare recipients. You tell me. I know one who has been receiving freebies for at least 20 years which seems to be long enough based on her attitude and her views she's expressed to me directly. She pretty open with me. She should because she has known me for almost her entire life and she knows that I have contributed plenty to her well being. You're an idiot for sticking with stereotypes in today's world. But, then again that's what idiots do.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-29-2017, 08:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-28-2017, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm dealing in realities while your stuck on stereotypes. I don't do stereotypes. I tend to ignore them and judge for myself. I would've ran out of friends along time ago had I stuck to stereotypes. Lets see, I've seen the teenager a couple of cash as you said. BTW, I view her so-called cash cows as poverty anchors. BTW, I would classify the teenager with the cash cows as an idiot welfare recipient. 

How much does their healthcare for themselves and their children cost us? How much does the roof over their heads for them and their children cost us? These aren't small ticket items. How much does the education or at least the attempt to educate their children or themselves and all the other services available to them cost us? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the costs associated with entitlement programs.

I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

In fact, welfare recipients have every incentive to take low-paying jobs as retail cashiers and fast-food workers.

True, you can live ok on minimum wage when taxpayers are absorbing the bulk of your higher costs. I lived really good when I was working full time and living in Mom's home before entering vocational school.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-29-2017, 08:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: More on this theme:




It is possible to look at this chart and see at the low end (10th percentile) what the intellectual qualifications are. A not-so-brilliant physician might be consigned to specialties that might not be so intellectually demanding. Getting into the medical profession is obviously difficult, requiring much intellectual proficiency before getting into med school. The second-most demanding looks like "legal professions".  I can imagine the low end being involved in such activities as collecting a debt through the use of a threat with a legal firm. Better this than the dead fish delivered to the doorstep of someone who gambled on credit and lost. College professors? The 10th percentile is around 95%. This may suggest the pedantic professor at a liberal arts school who knows one book and teaches it in a Great Books tradition. As such schools disappear, that sort of professor is clearly dying out or being consigned to a high school, where he needs more flexibility (10th percentile at an IQ of 91).

Hard work and dedicated specialization may put one in a surprisingly-strong field.  Could it be that smart but lazy, troubled, or indecisive people can end up as janitors or truck drivers?

But if one is smart, has a good work ethic, has access to credit and the willingness to use it, then the sky might be the limit. I would guess that although a job description can describe a paper-pushing clerk well, it poorly describes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Albert Einstein. Those two were basically what they did, and they got to choose what they did. For this one can look at the 90th percentile. Yes, there might be a janitor with an IQ of 130, but I doubt that such a janitor would be happy with such a job. 90% of all janitors have an IQ under 111...

I look at the 90th percentile for physicians, attorneys, college professors, and natural scientists/musicians, and I see an IQ of 132. It is easy to assume that someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Noam Chomsky loves what he does. It is safe to assume that the 91st through 99th percentiles of intelligence encompass people like this. There just aren't that many people with IQs over 130 that people so smart can be 10% of any profession.

So let's look at the 90th percentiles for people in some other categories:

electrical engineers 128
material and design engineers 128
finance/insurance/real estate occupations 128
computer occupations 128
social scientists 126
administrative occupations 126
high-school teachers 125
creative occupations 125
service managers 125
social workers and clergy 124

These fields offer much to those who do them. Even if the pay isn't so great for high-school teachers, social workers and clergy,  and lots of artists and writers are 'starving', the work offers potentially far more satisfaction than 'it pays the bills'.

Now let's look at the other end for the 90th percentile.

metalworking craftsmen 107 (the lowest level of IQ at the 90th percentile)
"operatives, other" (whatever that means) 109
truck drivers 109
freight and material handlers 109
janitors and sextons 111
carpenters 111
construction craftsmen other than carpenters 111
plumbers 112
assemblers 113

It is clear that one does most of these jobs solely for the money. It's hard to imagine any intellectual satisfaction from doing them.  Maybe there are virtues in having low expectations in life. Plumbers are skilled workers, but their work is unpleasant and often dangerous. Metalworking craftsmen? That includes foundry work. It might be more skilled and demanding than "janitors and sextons", but if you have ever worked in a foundry you have experienced a world that fits some images of hell. Maybe no brimstone, but certainly much fire.

It is obviously difficult to keep working for long in an occupation for which one lacks the intellectual standards. But working at an occupation far below one's talent? That is one possible component of alienation.

The work requires a variety of skills and a variety of knowledge and know how relating to different tasks and is often very fulfilling. Guess who was in that category 30 years ago. I've advanced since then. I assume you've never had a person standing and watching  in awe of what you are capable of doing or the work your capable of accomplishing or the problem you're able to solve.

[Kinser79]

(09-25-2017, 04:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-24-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-24-2017, 11:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 10:38 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 04:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first, Kinser is pretty unique.  I don't think anyone is doing the same thing as Kinser.

Oh please, you sound like you've never seen a black man who is conservative on some issues before.  Which if you've ever seen a black man at all, you've probably seen a black man who is conservative on some issues.

That would assume I have a bin labeled ‘conservative black’.  Everyone in the bin is considered alike.  I would supposedly act on that presumption freely.

So clearly you didn't understand my post at all.

Possibly not.  You are a rational sentient being, and should be treated as such, as unique, as judged by yourself rather than your skin pigmentation.  I live in the suburbs, and may have had different life experiences than you, different ideas on people.  Those I have seen have succeed at the economic games and don't play the victim card often.  You obsess on a different culture.

Unique was supposed to be a mutual complement saying I'm paying attention to a person who is worth paying attention to.

The people I have met have been software engineers, retired military, experienced role players, folks who have retired on a waterfront property, not professional leeches and victim card players.  Each in their own way have done well in messy environments.  It is not hard at all to treat them as equals.  Your obsession with skin pigmentation is fairly rare to me.  This would be part of why we see people so differently.

"Unique" may have been a supposed complement, it clearly was not taken that way.  My point was that I'm a black man who is conservative on some issues.  Most black men are conservative on one issue or an other, most people are conservative on one issue or an other.  This isn't about identity though it is about politics which is only informed indirectly by identity through culture.

Not really, see I'm not obsessed with skin pigmentation at all--white liberals are though.  After all, it is they who are the first to be upset with me for Supporting Trump While Black (STWB), something not even other blacks are quick to be upset with me over. The same crime Kanye West is guilty of.  Though unlike Kanye I voted for the man.  I mean lets look at my life.  I have a boyfriend of 12 years now, he's white.  I have a kid, also white.  My kid has a significant other who is first generation American of Korean dissent (he and his folks are often over--"mama-san" likes giving me home made kimchi), so yeah to have the "rainbow family" around my place I just need a latino houseboy. Unfortunately I can't afford a houseboy.  So I can't say that I have any obsession with skin pigmentation, unless you mean my public announcement of not being attracted to other black people--which is not as strange as you may think.

[Kinser79]

(09-25-2017, 05:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  But I will say this about Thoreau, I have always found his works to be rather insipid, but then again Fredrick Douglas has always resonated with me more strongly than any of the trancendentalists who mostly scribbled what looks like woo-woo on the level that Eric posts every day.

That's a decent synopsis of how values work.  If an idea doesn't mesh with what you already believe, you find an excuse not to listen or understand.

Yeah well it isn't hard to disreguard the transcendentalists. Seriously if you read them, it reads like the new age shit Eric posts about but in 19th century speak. It is totally uninteresting or enlightening. I did have to read some of them for English Class though, but I often got poor grades in Literature anyway since I often came up with things that were the opposite of what Mrs. White-Liberal-Teaching-Lady wanted me to.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I did describe them accurately, and it also applies to the current crop of Dims too.  As for populist politicans, actually I haven't.  Daddy isn't a politician which is why the Swamp hates him.  

Of course he his a politician.  As soon as he declared himself and started entering primaries, he was a politician.  Hiring half the swamp was gravy.  

I disagree. Being an elected official does not a politician make. If you noticed most of the people he's hired have had a 6-7 month tenure in office and then he fires them. He hires swamp creatures because they know where the levers are and can show him where they are. Once he knows where they are and what they do, he fires the swamp thing and replaces them with someone more reliable.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm going to "flame" whomever I choose to, for whatever reason I choose too.  If that hurts your fee fees I don't care.  Fuck your fee fees!

As for banning...I'm not interested in banning anyone unless they're up on the forum posting tons of spam or porn or something.  

Obscenity?

Were I a moderator, which I am not, I would not ban anyone for saying "shit" or "fuck" or even "nigger". And believe me some of you people can be far more obscene without using any of those words. If you want a forum where such things would be censored you're free to go there, or fuckbook or where ever.

Quote:The unraveling memes

Don't care. Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Great, we have another who can't come up with an original argument.  Back to your papal bull meme again.  When it comes to my view of PBR it is formed off of his statements and his actions.  Is my interpretation of those statements and actions influenced by my world view?  Yes, but whose isn't?  Certainly not yours.

You do have strong values, which in many ways is great, but you do tend to try to project them absurdly.  Try to listen to yourself.

I do listen to myself. If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation. This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing. Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As Philip Johnson said:  The first complete sentence out of my mouth was probably that line about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds.

Still, utter inconsistency isn't the best part of your act.

I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Are you stupid?  Government is force, it has always been force, and always will be force.  The main difference between a state's government and the mafia is that the government on occasion throws a public popularity contest where as the mafia has no need for such extravagances.

You really think that?  This is what I mean by having unusual values and trying to project them as truth.  We could stand more off the wall opinions, but people should know when they are off the wall.

Of course I really think that. Why does the government have the authority it does? Because it is assumed to also have the only legitimate use of force in society. Ergo government must be force. A mafia is force as well. The question is as to whether a government is force or is not force, not as to whether or not the use of that force is legitimate; which is an entirely separate question.

As for it being off the wall, not so much. It is purely logical and only off the wall to those who are inherently illogical, which maybe, Bob, you are.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Man in his primordial state is in a state of anarchy.  Indeed I'd go so far as to say that anarchy is man's natural state, and wanting to have civilization yet remain as close to the natural state as possible I have slowly, accepted that minarchism is a requirement to maintain civilization.

You are closer to Thoreau than you know, if allergic to the trappings, thus unable to comprehend his ideas.  "That government is best which governs least..."

But I find the premise questionable.  I've looked enough at great apes and their governing structures to expect, leaders, territories, tribes, etc...  They lack the language needed to go as far with it as humans, but I seriously doubt mankind's primordial state was anarchy.  Basing a political system on a convenient lie is problematic.  Like it or not, we are a political species.  The question is how to force the elites to respect the needs and wants of every man.  

We will have to see...

As I said previously, my main problem with Thoreau is the pseudo-mystical nonsense he wraps up his libertarianism in, not the libertarianism itself. I also mentioned Fredrick Douglass who wrote about politics extensively and yet avoided what I term woo-woo and found him much more appealing. The same can be said of other writers, while I may agree with what they have to say stripped of all the nonsense, it is the nonsense that I have a problem with.

As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent. The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution. While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.

[Bob Butler 54]

Too many stripes...

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yeah well it isn't hard to disregard the transcendentalists.  Seriously if you read them, it reads like the new age shit Eric posts about but in 19th century speak.  It is totally uninteresting or enlightening.  I did have to read some of them for English Class though, but I often got poor grades in Literature anyway since I often came up with things that were the opposite of what Mrs. White-Liberal-Teaching-Lady wanted me to.

I had a much better relationship with Mr. White Liberal Teaching Man.  Still, nether Thoreau nor Eric are particularly important writers to me now.  As I said, I reject one of Thoreau's basic assumptions.  The key is to understand how the mind gets turned off if the idea expressed don't mesh with your worldview.  Understanding one's own mind is far more important than understanding Eric's.  You are stuck in "I'm right, he contradicts, he must be wrong" mode.  I'm looking for how two essentially different ideas can be held and respected deeply at the same time.  There is a big difference.  

It is rather obvious that such a deep split in values and ideal happens regularly.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I disagree.  Being an elected official does not a politician make.  If you noticed most of the people he's hired have had a 6-7 month tenure in office and then he fires them.  He hires swamp creatures because they know where the levers are and can show him where they are.  Once he knows where they are and what they do, he fires the swamp thing and replaces them with someone more reliable.

We will profess very different reasons for the firings.  There is a conflict between establishment and close to the base people in the White House.  Many firings are to get rid of the close to the base people, to give the establishment clearer access.  Bannon might speak to that divide... fighting for the base from the outside.  There is a parallel wave if the firings about Trump being the only one allowed to do scandals.  Price stands out there.  If you really look at the firings, you will find that pattern quickly.  Looking for levers?  That's a new one.  I often think you've created an idealized version of Trump.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Don't care.  Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Really?  Lower taxes, a stronger military, less domestic spending...  The way to steal the Republican base is by promising the unraveling memes.  You should be aware of what Trump promised.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I do listen to myself.  If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation.  This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

Then you must have misspelled 'mispelled' deliberately.  Quite a touch.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing.  Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

As for the economics, that I understand well enough.  It is the voodoo school I object to when people claim the voodoo works.  There are many schools of economics that avoid voodoo.  Trying to use them doesn't result in collapse.  I will leave it to others to say why in more detail, but it has been said often enough.

For the rest, you'd have to move beyond 'I am right, he contradicts, so he mist be wrong.'  That's OK.  Almost no one does.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.

Hmm.  Maybe I should encourage you to believe that absolute opposites can be reconciled.

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent.  The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution.  While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.

I structure through four ages of civilization, hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps post scarcity, the last sometimes called information.  There are things to be learned from studying the hunter gatherer pattern.  I'm not going to unlearn them.  The books on the subject won't be unpublished.  

I won't ague that a hunter gatherer tribe such as amazon or pygmies are very different from a modern well adapted industrial state.  I'll just warn you that if you wait for mankind to revert to his 'natural' state of anarchy, you will have a long wait.  There is a peer bond, family bonds, a leader, usually a shaman, a set of rules, territory, etc...  The difference between the hunter gather period and later is that the leader is usually familiar with the entire tribe, thus the peer bond is much more involved.  There is a basic structure built in, and ignoring that structure is ill done.

Yes, there was a romantic 19th century idea that hunter gatherer people lived in anarchy which was somehow superior or even utopian.  Karl Marx had a notion that the state would wither away given a chance.  Thoreau's thinking was a little akin.  I have an opposing theory that the elite will seek power given a chance.

If you define 'anarchy' carefully, you might say some lived in a state of anarchy, but humans will still be a political animal.

[Kinser79]

(09-30-2017, 03:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Too many stripes...

There are never enough stripes. With you in general a line by line refutation is necessary. This does not lend itself well to long form responses, and that is before we even get into how forums themselves encourage "striped posts".

Quote:I had a much better relationship with Mr. White Liberal Teaching Man.

Not surprising considering you are a white liberal where as I'm neither white nor liberal. Identity informs culture which informs politics of course.

Quote:  Still, nether Thoreau nor Eric are particularly important writers to me now.

[quibble]I'd argue that Eric was never an important writer to anyone.[/quibble]

 

Quote:As I said, I reject one of Thoreau's basic assumptions.  The key is to understand how the mind gets turned off if the idea expressed don't mesh with your worldview.  Understanding one's own mind is far more important than understanding Eric's.  You are stuck in "I'm right, he contradicts, he must be wrong" mode.  I'm looking for how two essentially different ideas can be held and respected deeply at the same time.  There is a big difference.  

I'm not stuck in the "I'm right, you're wrong" mode. That is just the way it is, Bob. I am right and you are wrong. As for understanding minds, well Eric doesn't have one to understand. If you bother to read his posts you'd conclude that he became a vegetable sometime in the mid-1970s. In his case it is a matter of the lights are on but no one is home. As for my mind I understand it far better than you ever will, indeed I probably understand your mind about as well as any other person can understand the mind of an other.

Quote:It is rather obvious that such a deep split in values and ideal happens regularly.

Only for people who don't know what their values are.

Quote:We will profess very different reasons for the firings.  There is a conflict between establishment and close to the base people in the White House.  Many firings are to get rid of the close to the base people, to give the establishment clearer access.  Bannon might speak to that divide... fighting for the base from the outside.  There is a parallel wave if the firings about Trump being the only one allowed to do scandals.  Price stands out there.  If you really look at the firings, you will find that pattern quickly.  Looking for levers?  That's a new one.  I often think you've created an idealized version of Trump.

I would say that we see differences in white house staffing choices because you are clueless and I'm not. Spicer was not part of the base nor was close to it, he was Establishment. Priebus was pure establishment. Bannon resigned and it was known he was going to resign in about August or September of 2017 if Trump was elected (which he was). Bannon himself said he'd probably stick around for a year or so. His reasoning is that he is probably happier and makes more money running Breitbart.

As for scandals, as far as administrations go, Trump's has had incredibly few of them. The man runs a tight ship. As for an idealized version of Trump, that is unnecessary.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Don't care.  Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Really?  Lower taxes, a stronger military, less domestic spending...  The way to steal the Republican base is by promising the unraveling memes.  You should be aware of what Trump promised.

Huh? Did you even listen to Trump's campaign speeches? He ran on building a wall (more domestic spending), building up the infrastructure (more domestic spending). Though you are right about having a stronger military. As for taxes he seems to be more of the simplify first then lower if necessary (and considering how high business taxes are in comparison to other industrialized countries the taxes are too damn high).

So we're back to you either not paying attention or being stuck in a time warp. I think it is the latter since you're not clearly seeing Trump as he is, or as he would have been labeled say 30 years ago--a New York Business Democrat.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I do listen to myself.  If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation.  This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

Then you must have misspelled 'mispelled' deliberately.  Quite a touch.

I said I proof read my posts, not that I was perfect at that proofreading.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing.  Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

As for the economics, that I understand well enough.  It is the voodoo school I object to when people claim the voodoo works.  There are many schools of economics that avoid voodoo.  Trying to use them doesn't result in collapse.  I will leave it to others to say why in more detail, but it has been said often enough.

I don't think you do understand economics at all or you'd likely be more of the Austrian school. As for voodoo economics, well we can essentially class all forms of socialism as that--it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Quote:For the rest, you'd have to move beyond 'I am right, he contradicts, so he mist be wrong.'  That's OK.  Almost no one does.

I can't move past that until you stop being wrong. It is a condition that often afflicts debate with people who are wrong.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.

Hmm.  Maybe I should encourage you to believe that absolute opposites can be reconciled.

Absolute opposites rarely, if ever, are reconciled. Much like matter and anti-matter cannot be reconciled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent.  The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution.  While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.

I structure through four ages of civilization, hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps post scarcity, the last sometimes called information.  There are things to be learned from studying the hunter gatherer pattern.  I'm not going to unlearn them.  The books on the subject won't be unpublished.  

I won't ague that a hunter gatherer tribe such as amazon or pygmies are very different from a modern well adapted industrial state.  I'll just warn you that if you wait for mankind to revert to his 'natural' state of anarchy, you will have a long wait.  There is a peer bond, family bonds, a leader, usually a shaman, a set of rules, territory, etc...  The difference between the hunter gather period and later is that the leader is usually familiar with the entire tribe, thus the peer bond is much more involved.  There is a basic structure built in, and ignoring that structure is ill done.

Yes, there was a romantic 19th century idea that hunter gatherer people lived in anarchy which was somehow superior or even utopian.  Karl Marx had a notion that the state would wither away given a chance.  Thoreau's thinking was a little akin.  I have an opposing theory that the elite will seek power given a chance.

If you define 'anarchy' carefully, you might say some lived in a state of anarchy, but humans will still be a political animal.

This entire passage just indicates that no matter what you have read you clearly did not understand it. The difference between anarchy and having a state is the presence of a state. This concept is so simple a toddler can understand it, surely you are smarter than the average toddler.

Peer bonds, spouse bonds, familial bonds, tribal bonds are inherent to humanity being a social creature by nature, and political by nature only in that all social settings inevitably develop a political process of one sort or an other (office politics and etc). The state however is not a natural phenomenon, it is necessary only once a society advances beyond the hunter gatherer stage, though it is arguable it may be also unnecessary in a post scarcity society as well. However, conjectures on such a society are as fruitless and pointless as asking Thomas Aquinas about the year 2000.

However, no matter how long as recorded history seems to be, some 6000 years or so, humans existed on the planet for some 2 million years and it is only the last 6000 or so that states have existed. If we compressed all of human existence into a single day only the last 4 hours 19 minutes 12 seconds have been in the presence of a state.

As such we have to conclude that it is the state which is a social construction and not its absence.

As for elites seeking to maintain their power, there is no argument there. In Marxian terms it is in their class interests.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-30-2017, 04:19 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 03:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Too many stripes...

There are never enough stripes.  With you in general a line by line refutation is necessary.  This does not lend itself well to long form responses, and that is before we even get into how forums themselves encourage "striped posts".

Quote:I had a much better relationship with Mr. White Liberal Teaching Man.

Not surprising considering you are a white liberal where as I'm neither white nor liberal.  Identity informs culture which informs politics of course.

Quote:  Still, nether Thoreau nor Eric are particularly important writers to me now.

[quibble]I'd argue that Eric was never an important writer to anyone.[/quibble]

 

Quote:As I said, I reject one of Thoreau's basic assumptions.  The key is to understand how the mind gets turned off if the idea expressed don't mesh with your worldview.  Understanding one's own mind is far more important than understanding Eric's.  You are stuck in "I'm right, he contradicts, he must be wrong" mode.  I'm looking for how two essentially different ideas can be held and respected deeply at the same time.  There is a big difference.  

I'm not stuck in the "I'm right, you're wrong" mode.  That is just the way it is, Bob.  I am right and you are wrong.  As for understanding minds, well Eric doesn't have one to understand.  If you bother to read his posts you'd conclude that he became a vegetable sometime in the mid-1970s.  In his case it is a matter of the lights are on but no one is home.  As for my mind I understand it far better than you ever will, indeed I probably understand your mind about as well as any other person can understand the mind of an other.  

Quote:It is rather obvious that such a deep split in values and ideal happens regularly.

Only for people who don't know what their values are.

Quote:We will profess very different reasons for the firings.  There is a conflict between establishment and close to the base people in the White House.  Many firings are to get rid of the close to the base people, to give the establishment clearer access.  Bannon might speak to that divide... fighting for the base from the outside.  There is a parallel wave if the firings about Trump being the only one allowed to do scandals.  Price stands out there.  If you really look at the firings, you will find that pattern quickly.  Looking for levers?  That's a new one.  I often think you've created an idealized version of Trump.

I would say that we see differences in white house staffing choices because you are clueless and I'm not.  Spicer was not part of the base nor was close to it, he was Establishment.  Priebus was pure establishment.  Bannon resigned and it was known he was going to resign in about August or September of 2017 if Trump was elected (which he was).  Bannon himself said he'd probably stick around for a year or so.  His reasoning is that he is probably happier and makes more money running Breitbart.

As for scandals, as far as administrations go, Trump's has had incredibly few of them.  The man runs a tight ship.  As for an idealized version of Trump, that is unnecessary.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Don't care.  Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Really?  Lower taxes, a stronger military, less domestic spending...  The way to steal the Republican base is by promising the unraveling memes.  You should be aware of what Trump promised.

Huh?  Did you even listen to Trump's campaign speeches?  He ran on building a wall (more domestic spending), building up the infrastructure (more domestic spending).  Though you are right about having a stronger military.  As for taxes he seems to be more of the simplify first then lower if necessary (and considering how high business taxes are in comparison to other industrialized countries the taxes are too damn high).

So we're back to you either not paying attention or being stuck in a time warp.  I think it is the latter since you're not clearly seeing Trump as he is, or as he would have been labeled say 30 years ago--a New York Business Democrat.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I do listen to myself.  If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation.  This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

Then you must have misspelled 'mispelled' deliberately.  Quite a touch.

I said I proof read my posts, not that I was perfect at that proofreading.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing.  Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

As for the economics, that I understand well enough.  It is the voodoo school I object to when people claim the voodoo works.  There are many schools of economics that avoid voodoo.  Trying to use them doesn't result in collapse.  I will leave it to others to say why in more detail, but it has been said often enough.

I don't think you do understand economics at all or you'd likely be more of the Austrian school.  As for voodoo economics, well we can essentially class all forms of socialism as that--it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Quote:For the rest, you'd have to move beyond 'I am right, he contradicts, so he mist be wrong.'  That's OK.  Almost no one does.

I can't move past that until you stop being wrong.  It is a condition that often afflicts debate with people who are wrong.

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.

Hmm.  Maybe I should encourage you to believe that absolute opposites can be reconciled.

Absolute opposites rarely, if ever, are reconciled.  Much like matter and anti-matter cannot be reconciled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

Quote:

(09-30-2017, 01:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent.  The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution.  While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.

I structure through four ages of civilization, hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps post scarcity, the last sometimes called information.  There are things to be learned from studying the hunter gatherer pattern.  I'm not going to unlearn them.  The books on the subject won't be unpublished.  

I won't ague that a hunter gatherer tribe such as amazon or pygmies are very different from a modern well adapted industrial state.  I'll just warn you that if you wait for mankind to revert to his 'natural' state of anarchy, you will have a long wait.  There is a peer bond, family bonds, a leader, usually a shaman, a set of rules, territory, etc...  The difference between the hunter gather period and later is that the leader is usually familiar with the entire tribe, thus the peer bond is much more involved.  There is a basic structure built in, and ignoring that structure is ill done.

Yes, there was a romantic 19th century idea that hunter gatherer people lived in anarchy which was somehow superior or even utopian.  Karl Marx had a notion that the state would wither away given a chance.  Thoreau's thinking was a little akin.  I have an opposing theory that the elite will seek power given a chance.

If you define 'anarchy' carefully, you might say some lived in a state of anarchy, but humans will still be a political animal.

This entire passage just indicates that no matter what you have read you clearly did not understand it.  The difference between anarchy and having a state is the presence of a state.  This concept is so simple a toddler can understand it, surely you are smarter than the average toddler.

Peer bonds, spouse bonds, familial bonds, tribal bonds are inherent to humanity being a social creature by nature, and political by nature only in that all social settings inevitably develop a political process of one sort or an other (office politics and etc).  The state however is not a natural phenomenon, it is necessary only once a society advances beyond the hunter gatherer stage, though it is arguable it may be also unnecessary in a post scarcity society as well.  However, conjectures on such a society are as fruitless and pointless as asking Thomas Aquinas about the year 2000.

However, no matter how long as recorded history seems to be, some 6000 years or so, humans existed on the planet for some 2 million years and it is only the last 6000 or so that states have existed.  If we compressed all of human existence into a single day only the last 4 hours 19 minutes 12 seconds have been in the presence of a state.

As such we have to conclude that it is the state which is a social construction and not its absence.

As for elites seeking to maintain their power, there is no argument there.  In Marxian terms it is in their class interests.

I can understand his issues with understanding me, my views, what I'm saying and so forth. I have piss poor writing skills, obvious issues with grammar and I'm not nearly as well read. I can't understand his issues with understanding you, your views and so forth.

[Eric the Green]

(09-29-2017, 10:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-29-2017, 10:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would have thought you did some research and found out already how much they cost before you judged them as idiots and voted Republican because of people like them. The fact is that AFDC welfare recipients don't get enough to live on.

And you don't seem to know what an entitlement program is. Entitlement programs are those which the recipient has paid for, and thus is entitled to. Like social security. Welfare is not an entitlement program. Public education is something provided to all children, and is necessary if we are to continue living in a democratic society-- such as it is.

Your post illustrates the fact that Republican voters often vote on the basis of prejudice and resentment, rather than facts.

I vote against the welfare system/state and those who represent it. Just so we understand one another, if I were a welfare recipient, I wouldn't (want) to give up my free healthcare, free dental and eye coverage, free housing or housing subsidies, free energy or subsidized energy/utilities, free daycare or subsidized daycare, free furnaces and water heaters, free higher education or subsidized higher education, etc. because that would be down right stupid of me. Hmm, none of them are small ticket item based of my knowledge of all the costs associated with them. See, I don't think blues are that stupid. As far as the welfare recipients, I have to many relationships with to many of them for me to believe what you other blues always say that I believe is true. As I said, I don't do stereotypes. You're right, I am entitled to receive my social security and medicare. How many years of receiving freebies or substantially reduced costs before they are viewed by welfare recipients as entitlements? You're the resident expert on welfare recipients. You tell me. I know one who has been receiving freebies for at least 20 years which seems to be long enough based on her attitude and her views she's expressed to me directly. She pretty open with me. She should because she has known me for almost her entire life and she knows that I have contributed plenty to her well being. You're an idiot for sticking with stereotypes in today's world. But, then again that's what idiots do.

It's just the facts, not stereotypes, as far as I know. Welfare was restricted to 5 years during the Clinton/Gingrich years, so the person you know receiving freebees for 20 years, isn't getting federal welfare. Maybe something from the state. No, I don't think many people are out there who receive all the expensive freebees you mention. It doesn't matter if welfare recipients feel entitled to it; welfare is still not an entitlement program.

I did claim a reduced energy bill, but it's a small deduction, and I feel entitled to take it considering the inflated prices which big companies charge the people. If others have to pay more than I do with my small discount, then that's on the companies that charge too much, not on people like me. Our big corporations are extremely greedy, and most of what we pay goes for inflated salaries and stock market speculation by the rich owners and investors. In California, we have a non-profit activist group called TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) which tries to keep the inflated energy prices down to reasonable rates. It's a constant battle, and the Public Utility Commission only sometimes listens to the people, and only when we have a Democratic governor are PUC members appointed who might sometimes represent the peoples' interests. That has long been one of Gov. Brown's promises. Even so, they often do the bidding of the company. I got some free energy-saving devices too, but as far as I know, that was a program of the energy company, not something received from taxpayers. The energy companies are not entirely wrong about everything; they do some things right once in a while

You vote against the welfare state, I understand that. That's your right and your point of view. What you don't understand, though, is that you are voting against your own interests when you do that. Government spending has never gone down because of Republican or anti-welfare politicians. There's just not enough in welfare to cut that would benefit you in your tax bill. What they give you instead, is debt that is passed on to future generations. Meanwhile, if you pay taxes for things like higher education, then you are merely paying for what benefits you. It is merely a libertarian philosophy that counts against it, not any actual cost or benefit you may receive or endure. Opposition to the public sphere is merely an ideology that has no relationship to anything in reality. It is just a dog whistle to appeal to your dislike of welfare and your resentment against people who receive it.

[pbrower2a]

(09-30-2017, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-29-2017, 08:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: More on this theme:




It is possible to look at this chart and see at the low end (10th percentile) what the intellectual qualifications are. A not-so-brilliant physician might be consigned to specialties that might not be so intellectually demanding. Getting into the medical profession is obviously difficult, requiring much intellectual proficiency before getting into med school. The second-most demanding looks like "legal professions".  I can imagine the low end being involved in such activities as collecting a debt through the use of a threat with a legal firm. Better this than the dead fish delivered to the doorstep of someone who gambled on credit and lost. College professors? The 10th percentile is around 95%. This may suggest the pedantic professor at a liberal arts school who knows one book and teaches it in a Great Books tradition. As such schools disappear, that sort of professor is clearly dying out or being consigned to a high school, where he needs more flexibility (10th percentile at an IQ of 91).

Hard work and dedicated specialization may put one in a surprisingly-strong field.  Could it be that smart but lazy, troubled, or indecisive people can end up as janitors or truck drivers?

But if one is smart, has a good work ethic, has access to credit and the willingness to use it, then the sky might be the limit. I would guess that although a job description can describe a paper-pushing clerk well, it poorly describes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Albert Einstein. Those two were basically what they did, and they got to choose what they did. For this one can look at the 90th percentile. Yes, there might be a janitor with an IQ of 130, but I doubt that such a janitor would be happy with such a job. 90% of all janitors have an IQ under 111...

I look at the 90th percentile for physicians, attorneys, college professors, and natural scientists/musicians, and I see an IQ of 132. It is easy to assume that someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Noam Chomsky loves what he does. It is safe to assume that the 91st through 99th percentiles of intelligence encompass people like this. There just aren't that many people with IQs over 130 that people so smart can be 10% of any profession.

So let's look at the 90th percentiles for people in some other categories:

electrical engineers 128
material and design engineers 128
finance/insurance/real estate occupations 128
computer occupations 128
social scientists 126
administrative occupations 126
high-school teachers 125
creative occupations 125
service managers 125
social workers and clergy 124

These fields offer much to those who do them. Even if the pay isn't so great for high-school teachers, social workers and clergy,  and lots of artists and writers are 'starving', the work offers potentially far more satisfaction than 'it pays the bills'.

Now let's look at the other end for the 90th percentile.

metalworking craftsmen 107 (the lowest level of IQ at the 90th percentile)
"operatives, other" (whatever that means) 109
truck drivers 109
freight and material handlers 109
janitors and sextons 111
carpenters 111
construction craftsmen other than carpenters 111
plumbers 112
assemblers 113

It is clear that one does most of these jobs solely for the money. It's hard to imagine any intellectual satisfaction from doing them.  Maybe there are virtues in having low expectations in life. Plumbers are skilled workers, but their work is unpleasant and often dangerous. Metalworking craftsmen? That includes foundry work. It might be more skilled and demanding than "janitors and sextons", but if you have ever worked in a foundry you have experienced a world that fits some images of hell. Maybe no brimstone, but certainly much fire.

It is obviously difficult to keep working for long in an occupation for which one lacks the intellectual standards. But working at an occupation far below one's talent? That is one possible component of alienation.

The work requires a variety of skills and a variety of knowledge and know how relating to different tasks and is often very fulfilling. Guess who was in that category 30 years ago. I've advanced since then. I assume you've never had a person standing and watching  in awe of what you are capable of doing or the work your capable of accomplishing or the problem you're able to solve.

Lots of people have done work far too small for their spirits, work that they might as well be doing while smoking a joint. I have done clerical work, factory work, and retail sales. I am a very good paper-pusher because I pay attention to details and know where to look for 'rough spots'. I do paperwork at the first opportunity so that someone else can file it away. Given an opportunity to preempt trouble, I always take the opportunity.

I do not expect others to stand in awe watching me work. I am not, and have never been in any entertainment business. If others have stood by and watched me, then that is supervision, and the less supervisory attention that I get, the better. An inordinate degree of supervisory attention (except in a training situation) implies incompetence or malfeasance of the person being supervised. That unstable circumstance usually leads to the supervised person being fired.

I have watched highly-skilled people doing their jobs and am awed. But I have never been in a 'skilled worker' category of employment.

I have been (and hope to soon be again) a substitute school teacher. I have bragged about being a "blue-collar" school-teacher, meaning someone who spends as much time as possible circulating around the classroom looking for a struggling student and giving attention as needed. It helps to be as fit and mobile at my age and being about 70 30 pounds overweight. I am working on the other 30 pounds.

I have seen your description of your job, and I congratulate you on doing it and doing well because of it.

I take pride in my capacity for making statistical inferences and connecting such to existing knowledge. Just take a look at the category 'sales, other'. That is heavily retail sales, which includes the ill-paid store clerks (I have been there, and the stupider you are, the happier you are at such work) and those who sell big-ticket items on commission, from furniture to cars. At the low end in the category "sales, other" one finds an IQ of 79 (near-retardation) for the 10th percentile, which is about right for selling candy to children. At the high end one has expensive and complicated objects, like motor vehicles, boats, antiques, high-end jewelry, or art that require some verbal fluency and problem-solving to deal. The 90th percentile has people at an IQ of 117 (high normal). I sold appliances and consumer electronics when those were truly expensive, and I could have sold you a stereo that cost as much as a good used car back in those days. That was before the CD era. Matching someone to a car is much more difficult than matching someone to costume jewelry.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-30-2017, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's just the facts, not stereotypes, as far as I know. Welfare was restricted to 5 years during the Clinton/Gingrich years, so the person you know receiving freebees for 20 years, isn't getting federal welfare. Maybe something from the state. No, I don't think many people are out there who receive all the expensive freebees you mention. It doesn't matter if welfare recipients feel entitled to it; welfare is still not an entitlement program.

I did claim a reduced energy bill, but it's a small deduction, and I feel entitled to take it considering the inflated prices which big companies charge the people. If others have to pay more than I do with my small discount, then that's on the companies that charge too much, not on people like me. Our big corporations are extremely greedy, and most of what we pay goes for inflated salaries and stock market speculation by the rich owners and investors. In California, we have a non-profit activist group called TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) which tries to keep the inflated energy prices down to reasonable rates. It's a constant battle, and the Public Utility Commission only sometimes listens to the people, and only when we have a Democratic governor are PUC members appointed who might sometimes represent the peoples' interests. That has long been one of Gov. Brown's promises. Even so, they often do the bidding of the company. I got some free energy-saving devices too, but as far as I know, that was a program of the energy company, not something received from taxpayers. The energy companies are not entirely wrong about everything; they do some things right once in a while

You vote against the welfare state, I understand that. That's your right and your point of view. What you don't understand, though, is that you are voting against your own interests when you do that. Government spending has never gone down because of Republican or anti-welfare politicians. There's just not enough in welfare to cut that would benefit you in your tax bill. What they give you instead, is debt that is passed on to future generations. Meanwhile, if you pay taxes for things like higher education, then you are merely paying for what benefits you. It is merely a libertarian philosophy that counts against it, not any actual cost or benefit you may receive or endure. Opposition to the public sphere is merely an ideology that has no relationship to anything in reality. It is just a dog whistle to appeal to your dislike of welfare and your resentment against people who receive it.

You feel entitled to take advantage of it because it's there for you to take advantage of if you so choose. You can thank corporate welfare for your electrical subsidy via funding from some federal program associated with the welfare state that you clearly support. Californian's aren't paying for your subsidy. Americans from the other states are most likely paying for it.

I have no personal or financial stake in the welfare state. I am not a life long Democrat and I have no personal or financial stake in the future of the Democratic party. So, you're going to have to tell me what my interest is in the welfare state. I can tell that you never embraced the American way of life. That's to bad. I pop in and out of here as time/schedule permits. I pop in to see if the blues are still stuck on stereotypes, still bouncing around stereotypes and still limited by stereotypes and lend a little support to the new guys who are doing a fine job taking my place.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-30-2017, 06:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Lots of people have done work far too small for their spirits, work that they might as well be doing while smoking a joint. I have done clerical work, factory work, and retail sales. I am a very good paper-pusher because I pay attention to details and know where to look for 'rough spots'. I do paperwork at the first opportunity so that someone else can file it away. Given an opportunity to preempt trouble, I always take the opportunity.

I do not expect others to stand in awe watching me work. I am not, and have never been in any entertainment business. If others have stood by and watched me, then that is supervision, and the less supervisory attention that I get, the better. An inordinate degree of supervisory attention (except in a training situation) implies incompetence or malfeasance of the person being supervised. That unstable circumstance usually leads to the supervised person being fired.

I have watched highly-skilled people doing their jobs and am awed. But I have never been in a 'skilled worker' category of employment.

I have been (and hope to soon be again) a substitute school teacher. I have bragged about being a "blue-collar" school-teacher, meaning someone who spends as much time as possible circulating around the classroom looking for a struggling student and giving attention as needed. It helps to be as fit and mobile at my age and being about 70 30 pounds overweight. I am working on the other 30 pounds.  

I have seen your description of your job, and I congratulate you on doing it and doing well because of it.

I take pride in my capacity for making statistical inferences and connecting such to existing knowledge. Just take a look at the category 'sales, other'. That is heavily retail sales, which includes the ill-paid store clerks (I have been there, and the stupider you are, the happier you are at such work) and those who sell big-ticket items on commission, from furniture to cars. At the low end in the category "sales, other" one finds an IQ of 79 (near-retardation) for the 10th percentile, which is about right for selling candy to children. At the high end one has expensive and complicated objects, like motor vehicles, boats, antiques, high-end jewelry, or art that require some verbal fluency and problem-solving to deal. The 90th percentile has people at an IQ of 117 (high normal). I sold appliances and consumer electronics when those were truly expensive, and I could have sold you a stereo that cost as much as a good used car back in those days. That was before the CD era. Matching someone to a car is much more difficult than matching someone to costume jewelry.

I'm a high 120 something. Not bragging, it's just what I am. Do yourself a favor and don't ever act (give me the signs in your writing), approach me, imply or treat me as if I'm stupid or some how below you ever again. You are above me in age, grammar skills for now and that's it. According to that chart, I could have been a really good teacher if I wanted to be one. I choose to be a HVAC contractor. If you do, I will begin turn you into a laughing stock. I know that I could do it. You need this place. You need to vent. You need the support of others in this place. Me, I don't because I have a rather large group of support (family, friends, close acquaintances) that I've established over the years. I may not be able to write but I can read very well and process very well.

You appear to be learning stuff from the chart. You seem to be learning stuff that I figured out on my own a long time ago without the chart. Yes, a lot of people waste their intelligence. I had a lot of smart people who for one reason or another couldn't ever get there shit together, so to speak.  My mom always told me that my dad was underachiever and that I shouldn't be like my dad in that way. She also told me that he had told her that he was going die young during his early 30's. He died at the age of 51. He must have knew his fate. My mom liked nice things. My dad didn't care about having nice things. Dad was happy with plain things. My brother is just like her. I'm kinda like her. I'd prefer nice things but I'm ok with plain things. I don't think a broken down body is worth a house full of nice things. Me, whether it's nice or just plain, it must be quality.

[pbrower2a]

(10-01-2017, 01:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a high 120 something. Not bragging, it's just what I am. Do yourself a favor and don't ever act (give me the signs in your writing), approach me, imply or treat me as if I'm stupid or some how below you   ever again. You are above me in age, grammar skills for now and that's it. According to that chart, I could have been a really good teacher if I wanted to be one. I choose to be a HVAC contractor.   If you do, I will begin turn you into a laughing stock. I know that I could do it. You need this place. You need to vent. You need the support of others in this place. Me, I don't because I have a rather large group of support (family, friends, close acquaintances) that I've established over the years. I may not be able to write but I can read very well and process very well.

You appear to be learning stuff from the chart. You seem to be learning stuff  that I figured out on my own a long time ago without the chart. Yes, a lot of people waste their intelligence. I had a lot of smart people who for one reason or another couldn't ever get there shit together, so to speak.    My mom always told me that my dad was underachiever and that I shouldn't be like my dad in that way. She also told me that he had told her that he was going die young during his early 30's. He died at the age of 51. He must have knew his fate. My mom liked nice things. My dad didn't care about having nice things. Dad was happy with plain things. My brother is just like her. I'm kinda like her. I'd prefer nice things but I'm ok with plain things. I don't think a broken down body is worth a house full of nice things. Me, whether it's nice or just plain, it must be quality.

I do some things very well and some things badly. That is the human norm. I have at best average mechanical aptitude, so I would not be a good HVAC technician, and long-unrecognized Asperger's syndrome has badly messed up my life.

I have great intellectual power. The problem is that I could not use it. I was led into activities horribly unsuited to anyone with Asperger's, activities in which I was doomed to failure. I developed a reputation for clueless eccentricity. Today the educational system would catch Asperger's from the stilted language that I used as a child, from being bullied often, and doing badly in team sports.

I must act to seem normal. I have to explain my slip-ups as "nobody is perfect".

I can imagine a better life for myself. But that requires turning the calendar back, which would surely hurt someone as badly as I might do better.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-30-2017, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I can understand his issues with understanding me, my views, what I'm saying and so forth. I have piss poor writing skills, obvious issues with grammar and I'm not nearly as well read. I can't understand his issues with understanding you, your views and so forth.

I don’t think the problem is writing skills.  You are quite adequate, while Kinser has a ‘style’.  Both are quite comprehensible.

I’ll try to keep is simple, but it is hard to cross a values divide.

There is a blue perspective that many need help which is being provided.

There is a red perspective that there are many cheaters (predators / liars).

Both factions will present first hand real world accounts for what they believe, sources for their own perspectives.

I can well believe most of the first hand accounts.  I have personally seen cheaters who know and game the system for personal advantage.  I have also personally seen people who truly need help.

To me, this is a problem of balance, of providing much needed help while making it as hard as one can on the cheaters.

My problem is with how people discredit or throw away what the other guy has seen.   Because one has seen some cheaters, does one assume that all are cheaters?  Because one has seen those who genuinely need help, should one assume all those seeking help do so honestly and genuinely?

A while ago, some red folk were complaining that the blue were not listening.  In this I tried to listen.  I am finding that no one is listening.  One’s own perspective is assumed true and over rides any other.  This fits well what I’ve always believed.

The welfare ‘debate’ above may be representative of many.  Neither faction is capable or willing to accept that the other faction has a point.

Meanwhile, in one direction at least, on one issue at least, it seems impossible to start a conversation on the assumption that there are basic and important points on both sides that have much pertinent truth in them.  And sometimes the ‘truth’ one side sees is pure stereotype.  One side will try to tell the other what the other really saw in the real world.

Sorry.  I tried to keep it simple.  I don’t think it is a grammar problem, but in thinking in a way one is not used to.

[Eric the Green]

(09-30-2017, 11:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 02:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's just the facts, not stereotypes, as far as I know. Welfare was restricted to 5 years during the Clinton/Gingrich years, so the person you know receiving freebees for 20 years, isn't getting federal welfare. Maybe something from the state. No, I don't think many people are out there who receive all the expensive freebees you mention. It doesn't matter if welfare recipients feel entitled to it; welfare is still not an entitlement program.

I did claim a reduced energy bill, but it's a small deduction, and I feel entitled to take it considering the inflated prices which big companies charge the people. If others have to pay more than I do with my small discount, then that's on the companies that charge too much, not on people like me. Our big corporations are extremely greedy, and most of what we pay goes for inflated salaries and stock market speculation by the rich owners and investors. In California, we have a non-profit activist group called TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization) which tries to keep the inflated energy prices down to reasonable rates. It's a constant battle, and the Public Utility Commission only sometimes listens to the people, and only when we have a Democratic governor are PUC members appointed who might sometimes represent the peoples' interests. That has long been one of Gov. Brown's promises. Even so, they often do the bidding of the company. I got some free energy-saving devices too, but as far as I know, that was a program of the energy company, not something received from taxpayers. The energy companies are not entirely wrong about everything; they do some things right once in a while

You vote against the welfare state, I understand that. That's your right and your point of view. What you don't understand, though, is that you are voting against your own interests when you do that. Government spending has never gone down because of Republican or anti-welfare politicians. There's just not enough in welfare to cut that would benefit you in your tax bill. What they give you instead, is debt that is passed on to future generations. Meanwhile, if you pay taxes for things like higher education, then you are merely paying for what benefits you. It is merely a libertarian philosophy that counts against it, not any actual cost or benefit you may receive or endure. Opposition to the public sphere is merely an ideology that has no relationship to anything in reality. It is just a dog whistle to appeal to your dislike of welfare and your resentment against people who receive it.

You feel entitled to take advantage of it because it's there for you to take advantage of if you so choose. You can thank corporate welfare for your electrical subsidy via funding from some federal program associated with the welfare state that you clearly support. Californian's aren't paying for your subsidy. Americans from the other states are most likely paying for it.

It's not an entitlement, though. I chose to take advantage of the discount, yes. There may be a federal program associated with it. I don't know if this is federal taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for sure, but am pretty sure it's not. Our electric company has its progressive aspects, since it serves northern CA, so it feels the need to appeal to the predominant attitudes here in the region that does more energy conservation than any other region in America. And CA is also the #1 welfare state in America.

Quote:I have no personal or financial stake in the welfare state. I am not a life long Democrat and I have no personal or financial stake in the future of the Democratic party. So, you're going to have to tell me what my interest is in the welfare state. I can tell that you never embraced the American way of life. That's to bad. I pop in and out of here as time/schedule permits. I pop in to see if the blues are still stuck on stereotypes, still bouncing around stereotypes and still limited by stereotypes and lend a little support to the new guys who are doing a fine job taking my place.

My opinion is, that welfare and the social-insurance state serves your interest, but you don't realize it, since you think you can be self-reliant enough to avoid using it, and others should be too. Self-reliance is a key value for you, rather than reliance on the state. You consider it "the American way of life." Liberals and the majority within the blue states and the urban and many suburban regions do not consider self-reliance to be exclusively "the American way of life," as opposed also to the value of mutual help and interdependence as the need arises. Liberals and Democrats consider state welfare a prudent social insurance system which any of us may need at any time. These needs were not satisfied before the New Deal and Great Society, and so people suffered. So, it's a "blue" and "red" disagreement as to what constitutes "the American way of life." We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

btw I have as you know been a self-employed business owner for a number of years, although it's not the kind of business you might like. But it supports many independent businesses.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: We liberals think we ought to catch up to the rest of the developed world in regard to such things as social insurance and green values, and not remain in a regressive condition as we have now for 40 years. And subject to the counter-awakening that dates from 1964, and triumphed in 1980.

Good post overall.

A nitpick on dates. 1964 feels just a bit early. What event(s) of 1964 do you consider important? You are likely just picking up the early turn of the tide, not waiting on the flow being obvious.